FOLLOWING the first assembly elections in Jammu & Kashmir after the unilateral August 5th decision, the people voted decisively, rejecting divisive and proxy parties and electing strong representatives who reflect their aspirations. The National Conference emerged as a significant force, securing a substantial number of seats, marking a clear shift in public sentiment and underscoring a preference for stability and self-representation.

Under a pre-poll alliance under the INDIA Bloc, the newly formed assembly, in a brief but impactful five-day session, passed a landmark resolution opposing the August 5th unilateral decision and advocating for the restoration of J&K’s special status. This resolution, backed by the CPI(M) in J&K, set a powerful tone for the assembly’s future direction, reflecting the collective voice of the elected representatives as they tackled the region’s core issues.

These first five days in the assembly were crucial, marking a significant step in J&K's path forward after a long period without elected representation. While most members embraced this opportunity to address the pressing demands of the people, some parties seemed more focused on scoring media points than on substantive debate, acting as if this would be their only chance to speak.

Following the election of the Speaker, as part of formal proceedings, the Lieutenant Governor (LG) addressed the assembly, symbolising the start of the new legislative period. The remaining days were designated as business days for legislators to respond to the LG’s address and engage in discussions crucial to J&K’s future.

On the very first business day, a resolution was introduced in support of restoring J&K's special status and constitutional guarantees – a historic move that received broad backing from all non-BJP parties in the assembly. Although a few representatives later raised objections, the resolution ultimately passed by voice vote amid protests from opposition members. The BJP, rather than engaging in substantive discussion, largely abstained from participation, opting instead for disruptions and noise, which led to chaos that marshals struggled to control.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SPECIAL STATUS

The debates around the resolution rekindled discussions about the historical basis of J&K’s special status, rooted in the region's unique circumstances during the Partition era. Maharaja Hari Singh, then ruler of J&K, hesitated to join either India or Pakistan in 1947, only making a choice under duress when tribal raiders threatened his rule on October 26 of that year. The resulting Instrument of Accession, which secured J&K’s entry into India, came with negotiated terms that afforded the region certain autonomy, later enshrined in Section 370 of the Indian Constitution.

In his address, one senior legislator questioned, “Why was Maharaja Hari Singh reluctant to join either dominion? This is an unresolved question, rooted in special historical circumstances.” This hesitance and the subsequent negotiations reflected not just the geopolitical tensions of the time but the complex socio-cultural identity of J&K. The Constituent Assembly deliberated extensively on these terms, ensuring that any future changes to J&K’s special status could only occur with the consent of the J&K Constituent Assembly. Members urged those opposing special status today to revisit this history and understand the commitments made to J&K.

As a senior representative emphasized, “BJP should read history carefully; they forget that this constitutional arrangement wasn’t one-sided. Dr Mukherjee, a member of the Constituent Assembly, did not dissent when Article 370 was debated and implemented. This historical context must be remembered today.”

CPI(M)’S RESPONSE TO THE LG ADDRESS

CPI(M) leader and MLA from Kulgam, Muhammad Yousuf Tarigami highlighted the challenges faced by the newly elected Assembly, particularly around ambiguities in its legislative authority after the Reorganisation Act. “I do not know which areas of the legislature we can legislate on,” he stated, stressing the need for clarity on the business rules governing J&K. He urged that if this clarity was not reached within the Assembly, the LG and the elected government, led by Omar Abdullah, should jointly define the scope of legislative governance.

Tarigami further questioned the LG’s address, pointing to an absence of accountability, especially concerning governance over the past five years. He argued that the LG should have provided a detailed report on issues like employment, infrastructure development, and public grievances. “The people have the right to know – how many jobs were created, how many terminated without due process, and what has been done to address the high unemployment rate in the region?” he challenged, citing cases of arbitrary dismissals of government employees without notice or proper investigation into alleged activities.

Tarigami raised the issue of resource allocation, calling for the implementation of the Ranga Rajan Commission’s recommendations. “Our rivers, our resources benefit others while we remain in darkness,” he argued, highlighting how J&K’s resources have long served external interests more than the local population. Referring to the Indus Water Treaty, he demanded that J&K should receive a 40 per cent share of the benefits from the National Hydropower Project (NHP) to bridge resource and economic gaps. “Only then can we move toward a more equitable future,” he insisted.

In a critical stance on recent judicial decisions, Tarigami asserted that even a single citizen has the legitimate right to voice their opinion on the Supreme Court’s verdicts. Drawing a parallel with the Delhi government’s experience, where the Government of India had to pass separate legislation after a Supreme Court decision, he emphasized that the right to dissent is fundamental to democracy, even if one's opinion is in the minority. "I did not feel that justice was served, as a citizen," he remarked, underscoring the importance of this sentiment for the people of J&K.

The MLA from Kulgam challenged the idea that the LG’s government represents the people. “Whose government is he referring to? Our government came into power yesterday. The LG should present a report on the past five years – how many came to the Secretariat with applications? How many from Jammu? How many from Kashmir?” he asked, highlighting the disconnect between administrative claims and the realities faced by the people.